Talk:Art student scam/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Nationality

Who says these con men are Israeli? The title of the article is "Israeli Art Student Scam", but if you actually read the articles, a different picture emerges. The Seattle article calls them people "claiming to be Israeli art students." the Australia article says "people posing as Israeli art students" and the canada article describes "a con artist, who claimed to be an art student from Israel." No actual Israelis are identified in any of these articles. Certainly, none was arrested. Now, art scams are a very popular activity. Certainly, there is a scam going on in which the scammers claim to be Israeli and claimm to be art students. and claim to be selling art that was created by Israeli artists. But there is no evidence that there are actual Israelis involved. Unless there is proof that the con men are actually Israelis, the article is defamatory.AMuseo (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If all of them claim to be Israeli or they claim that the paintings are done by Israeli students, then I think it's fair enough to call it the "Israeli art student scam", regardless of whether they really are Israeli. If it were called "Canadian art student scam", it would be too confusing, since none of these people claim to be Canadian art students. (Huey45 (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

The quoted Jewish Daily Forward article,Espionage Ruled Out in Case of Bad Art, seems to have no doubt about the nationality of the students. And, it seems to me that stating as a fact that the stories of spying were an urban myth based on an article saying that an unnamed official said so is stretching things a bit.     ←   ZScarpia   21:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Justin Raimondo names names. It seems that he and the DEA, at least, have no doubt about the nationality of those involved.     ←   ZScarpia   21:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

2001/2 events versus the rest

It seems to me that bringing together isolated reports of petty crime from random parts of the world, without a reliable source that argues they are related, is Original Research. I think those reports should be removed. Incidentally, what about Chinese art student scams or English art student scams? Zero^talk 07:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The second is actually "Chinese English student scam", not "English art student scam". Hans Adler 14:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Democracy Now program

This program on Democracy Now in 2007 has a lot of information that may be of use to the article. Question though: why were the links made between this and 9/11 removed? They are made by high quality reliable sources like Alexander Cockburn in his book on anti-Semitism, and in this program by Christopher Ketcham, among others. Could that material be restored and expanded with careful attention to what the sources have to say? Tiamut^talk 20:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because the head of CounterPunch.org is anything but a reliable source. ----DanTD (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename?

In the AfD discussion, much has been made about the article content not corresponding to its title. The article covers a "scam thing" (apparently motivated by profit) and a "spy thing" (spying suspected, but not proven). These two cases have two things in common: 1) the people involved were Israelis, 2) they were impostors - they claimed to be art students, but they were not. So, maybe Israeli art student fraud is a better title - false impersonation is a kind of fraud, regardless of the motives, while "scam" implies motivation by material gain. GregorB (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much once the article has been rewritten as it should be, i.e. reflecting the treatment in reliable sources. Then it will be about the scam, with a short section (plus a sentence in the lead) discussing the DEA document and the conspiracy theory. Hans Adler 13:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Point

No not wikipoint. What is the subject? What is the point? Is it schemers? Is it espionage? Based on the title, lets say it is about the scheemers. Two editors have tried to make the change recently. Others have tried to limit it as well. It has been reverted over and over again. So assuming this makes it out of AfD, one of the two and some renaming needs to happen ASAP.Cptnono (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have run into this myself. You see lots of "mass produced" paintings around. I'm sure lots of people sell them door to door claiming to be art students. Maybe if more people went to community college and took classes in art fewer people would fall for it. BTW does WP have an article on "mass produced painting"? Wolfview (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is Velvet painting.Wolfview (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Forbidden City

I just mentioned in the article that the scam is carried out inside one (or possibly more) of the buildings in the Forbidden City. I didn't include a reference because I don't know how and it's my own experience anyway. The "artworks" were quite obviously mass-produced rather than individually painted by wannabe artists, since a lot of them were exactly the same, all of them had the same paint/ink etc and they looked too good to be done by kids from a rural high school. The place was set up as a salesroom rather than an exhibition anyway, with the "art" crowded all over the wall, from the ceiling to the floor. The prices were outrageously high as well, as you would expect. (Huey45 (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

There are many unreliable sources on the web that mention the Forbidden City, but not your specific detail. You can add {{cn}} behind your sentence. Then others see at a glance that there is a source missing, and perhaps provide one. Hans Adler 13:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an unreliable source; I saw it with my own eyes and I even went into their "exhibition". (Huey45 (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

See WP:SELFCITING: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources." In my opinion the passage could have stayed in, marked as "citation needed". After all, there is no reason to doubt that it is true, and it seems likely the a source can be found.

Please do not describe other editors' actions as "vandalism" in the edit summary unless they really fall under the definition in WP:VAND. It's not acceptable and you can get in trouble for doing it. Hans Adler 00:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

@Huey45: Echoing what Hans Adler said, without a citation from a reliable source, the edit appears to be original research, which is not a valid basis for an addition to Wikipedia, as Markowitz correctly explained in his edit summary for this edit. Since Google turns up a number of mentions of the scam at the Forbidden City in blogs and such (and there is even a passing mention in one of the sources now cited in the article), it is certainly possible that a reliable source can be found for this, so I've marked it with the "citation needed" template. Please note, however, that this article has been the subject of extended discussion, and survives now mainly because of an outstanding revision by Hans Adler that scrupulously trimmed the article of improper tone and content. Accordingly, all the editors here are likely to be very sensitive to edits that don't comply with Wikipedia requirements, and if an acceptable source isn't identified in a reasonable time, deletion may be the result.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your obsession with original research is counter-productive and annoying. Nevertheless, I'll remove my contribution myself, despite it being completely correct, since I know you nerds will otherwise keep harassing me. I'm insulted by you suggesting that any random blog on the internet counts as a reliable source, but my eyewitness account doesn't.(Huey45 (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

It seems you don't really understand Wikipedia rules. Original research is strictly forbidden. The only person "harassing" here is you, by labeling other editors "nerds" and "vandalists". Marokwitz (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion you are both wrong. There is nothing wrong with unsourced statements in articles so long as it's clear they are true. That's why we have the tags that ask for sources. If every such bit had to be removed immediately we wouldn't need these tags. On the other hand, I think Huey overreacted a bit. Different people have different ideas of how this encyclopedia must self-evidently function. We all need a certain degree of tolerance for each other. Hans Adler 14:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure this also exists in India

I'm pretty sure someone tried this with me in Udaipur. (Though my contact lens problems ruined the scam before it got going, because I could barely see his art.) I can't find a reliable source talking about this scam in India, but others might want to investigate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I can not imagine a place where it doesn't exist. It is easy and cheap to mass produce art, many people can not tell the difference, if someone says he is an art student then he will get some sympathy. The only thing more common is to say it's folk art. Wolfview (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

user:Preciseaccuracy installing POV, and the original research

I removed the edits by user:Preciseaccuracy here The Fox news article the user used as a reference has never mentioned anything about students.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove these quotations which clearly add to balance and extremely relevant information to the article?

In response to criticism that the idea of an israeli art spy ring was an "urban myth," a salon.com article stated "The Post's apparent debunking was far from convincing, even to the casual reader. Of course there was no proof that the art students were part of a spy ring: Intelligence Online and Le Monde had jumped the gun. However, the real possibility that they were part of a spy ring could not be dismissed -- any more than could any other theory one might advance to explain their unusual behavior. With that in mind, Justice spokeswoman Dryden's assertion that reports of an Israeli spy ring were an "urban myth" was an oddly overplayed denial."

Salon went on to say "To someone not familiar with the 60-page DEA memo, or to reporters who didn't bother to obtain it, the fact that a disgruntled employee leaked a memo he wrote himself might seem like decisive proof that the whole "art student" tale was a canard. In reality, the nature of the memo makes its authorship irrelevant. The memo is a compilation of field reports by dozens of named agents and officials from DEA offices across America. It contains the names, passport numbers, addresses, and in some cases the military ID numbers of the Israelis who were questioned by federal authorities. Pointing a finger at the author is like blaming a bank robbery on the desk sergeant who took down the names of the robbers."[21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the proposed additions are excessive. As Mbz points out the Fox source is irrelevant. The Salon article is a single article from 2002 that (as far I can see) got little traction thereafter outside the fringe. Per WP:WEIGHT, at most it might deserve a sentence and a footnote. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(As far as you can see). Well read the other source articles on this site. At least two mentioned the salon.com article specifically meaning that it did indeed gain traction. Both Ha’aretz and the forward article mention the salon.com article. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243 http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that "traction", exactly: the first mention was contemporaneous and the other, later one ("Espionage Ruled Out in Case of Bad Art") debunks the espionage claim. I still think this Salon.com reference should be cut down to a sentence at most, and it could be made clearer that no other reliable sources support the espionage conclusion, but I would like to hear other opinions.-Arxiloxos (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The title, "Espionage ruled out in case of bad art" refers to the specific suspected Canada operation in 2004 of Israeli art students in Canada spying in 2004 and not the suspected Israeli art student American operation of 2001."As late as last year, the respected Internet magazine Salon.com revived the spy ring allegations in a lengthy and detailed report recounting the charges and suggesting that the group may have been operating in as many as 40 American cities." Both the haaretz and forward article treat it as controversial. This claim is far from urban myth and calling it such is misleading. Not having absolute proof that the art students were spies shouldn't refute the evidence against the claim that this is an "urban myth." The fact is that this gained so much traction that Canadians were worried about it three years later. No source states that an "espionage conclusion" for the 2001 u.s. operation as 100 percent proved, but many sources demonstrate why it is highly suspect and not an "urban myth."

The Forward article alone refers to three specific sources that point to the credibility of the 2001 u.s. version. "Fox News, Salon.com", and "most extensively by the Atlanta-based alternative newspaper Creative Loafing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.129.236 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The article was 'fine', why stir up old issues? Reminds me of an editor who has since relaxed. --Shuki (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The salon argument is extremely rational. What is irrational is to believe that a lone dea agent wrote the sixty page dea document of reports all across the country with over a hundred names, passport numbers, addresses, of israelis and american agents as some sort of practical joke. The dea document is a "living breathing document" and to take as fact that israeli art students by coincidence just happened to wander into secure areas of government buildings all across the country, be found caught doing odd things around numerous military bases that in some cases weren't public knowledge definitely raises a lot of red flags. To label this as wild speculation is crazy. Without extremely concrete evidence that this was indeed a spy ring Carl Cameron and Brit Hume would not have done his four part series on the spy ring. As they said during the broadcast, "to accuse israel of spying is considered career suicide." One wouldn't risk their career over wild speculation. The risks to Cameron's career were indeed real as demonstrated by the Salon article also. Some advocates from pro israel groups even went so far as to suggest that Cameron might be a bigot because his dad was an archeologist for a few years in Iran. Thus, for those complaining about space, I could condense the two quotes above to

In response to criticism that the idea of an israeli art spy ring was an "urban myth," a salon.com article stated "The Post's apparent debunking was far from convincing, even to the casual reader."....."To someone not familiar with the 60-page DEA memo, or to reporters who didn't bother to obtain it, the fact that a disgruntled employee leaked a memo he wrote himself might seem like decisive proof that the whole "art student" tale was a canard. In reality, the nature of the memo makes its authorship irrelevant. The memo is a compilation of field reports by dozens of named agents and officials from DEA offices across America. It contains the names, passport numbers, addresses, and in some cases the military ID numbers of the Israelis who were questioned by federal authorities. Pointing a finger at the author is like blaming a bank robbery on the desk sergeant who took down the names of the robbers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 00:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Chinese version of the scam

I don't think that this is very noteworthy and seems to be a digression. What rational person would assume that they are getting original valuable art works from someone they randomly met on the street in china. A country where five dollar northface jackets and fake rolex's abound and where patents are extremely loosely enforced if at all. There are easily thousands of petty money making scams all around china. This should at the very most be a very minor sidenote, let alone being the introduction to the wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 09:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's fine the way it is. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to keep the chinese art scam it should be in a separate sub-category under the section heading "Variants". The chinese art student hustle should be kept separate from the suspected israeli "art student" scam/spy ring for readability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 22:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is fine as it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The priority of this article is not meant to be the fake Israeli thing; there are plenty of other people purporting to be art students in order to sell overpriced reproductions. You already tried to hijack the article with your stuff about the DEA; leave the rest alone. (Huey45 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

I agree that the art scam is what this article is about as implied by its title. It was the aspect that there was clear consensus to keep at the time of the afd. As I recall, the conspiracy theory did not have clear consensus though this wasn't formally resolved because of the refocusing/renaming of the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Preciseaccuracy, I'm not trying to "gang up" on you; it's just that much of your addition to the article is not written from a neutral point of view and some of it is just the editor's opinion, such as the false analogy of the cop recording the names of the bank robbers.

I called it "the fake Israeli thing" because all of the previous sources (yes, you're not the first person to mention this) suggested that the salesmen weren't even Israeli, let alone art students. When people keep turning up to this article, saying "ZOMG GAIZ DERE'S A BIG CONSPIRACY HURR DURR", one has to start paying careful attention to the basis of the claims. (Huey45 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

Its very odd how other users have a problem with the salon article but they don't seem to have a problem with any of the sources that were attached about chinese guys on the streets of china selling fake art that they say is real. These sources only very briefly mention chinese art students and at least two or three of the four sources about the chinese appear to be blogs. Thus, it is the chinese scam that is given undue weight. The sources attached to this wikipedia article about the chinese con appear for the most part to be near garbage. http://www.startbackpacking.com/travel/china-scam/ http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Asia/China/Beijing_Shi/Beijing-1024960/Tourist_Traps-Beijing-Art_Students-BR-1.html http://www.chinaprimer.com/china-travel-tips/china-tourism-scams.html http://books.google.com/books?id=1DqjMGlyY5QC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 09:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Preciseaccuracy (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Will [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] and [8] work in their place?Cptnono (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User Huey45 acting in "bad faith"

Huey45 says… “I called it "the fake Israeli thing" because all of the previous sources (yes, you're not the first person to mention this) suggested that the salesmen weren't even Israeli, let alone art students.”

In fact, all of these sources unequivocally state that they were Israelis, and mention art students. The fact is that Huey45 has been repeatedly lying with the purpose of mutilating the content of this article. I think that he should be banned from this article.

Sources:

• http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html
• http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html
• http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html
• http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243
• http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/
• http://www.zeit.de/2002/41/Tuer_an_Tuer_mit_Mohammed_Atta -note: this article is in german, from die zeit, its easy to translate with google or yahoo
• http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07
• http://web.archive.org/web/20060423065411/
• http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I read the contributions by Preciseaccuracy here. The writing style doesn't appear to be suitable for an encyclopædia. If the information is poorly or incorrectly written, expressed and executed, editors will remove it. I did not read all the sources provided above, but some articles may contain the authors' views and opinions. I suggest taking the salmon.com article (and other articles) to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard to determine its reliability.  Davtra  ^(talk) 14:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Fox news 4 part special

Please watch all 4 parts of this special. Parts 1 and 4 seem to deal the most directly with the suspected Israeli spy ring. Parts 2 and 3 seem to deal more with suspected spying by the corporations "Amdocs" and "Comverse Infosys." As this news special is a very substantial and important source, if you can't bother to take the 20 minutes to watch it, you should forfeit your editing say in this wikipedia article.

-After watching the four parts, directly state that you have watched parts 1,2,3, and 4. For example, "I have watched parts 1,2,3 and 4."

-Then state whether in your opinion it makes sense to classify the 2001 israeli "art student" spying on the United States in the categories of urban myths and wild conspiracy theories.

For example: No, the Israeli "art student" spy ring does not fall under these categories. Instead, a more apt description would be Suspected Israeli "art student" spy ring. This is due to the serious coverage of both Brit Hume and Carl Cameron and the substantial amount of evidence presented by them. Also, because this gained enough traction to be asked about in the white house press corps and where "the questions were fielded like hot potatoes" by both Ari Fleischer and Colin Powel. This also gained serious coverage in the sources above. Also, "Justice spokeswoman Dryden's assertion that reports of an Israeli spy ring were an "urban myth" was an oddly overplayed denial. A response that fit the facts would have been something like "There have been numerous reports of suspicious behavior by Israelis claiming to be art students. We are looking into the allegations." There is clearly a serious credibility issue with the Washington post article when they claim to debunk an "urban myth" given that they didn't even bother to obtain the 60 pg. dea document that the other sources had on hand. However, the article still serves as another example of mainstream traction for the suspected spy ring.

Make sure to answer in the above format.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC) 

"Then state whether in your opinion it makes sense to classify the 2001 israeli "art student" spying on the United States in the categories of urban myths and wild conspiracy theories",

The youtube links to the fox news special about israel spying have been deleted from wikipedia because links to copyrighted material on youtube are not permitted on wikipedia. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

After you watched these videos, did you conclude and classify the 2001 Israeli "art student" ring as urban myths and wild conspiracy theories?  Davtra  ^(talk) 14:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that when you added the word "conclude" you may have unintentionally skewed the meaning of what I was asking for. I am not asking anyone to conclude whether or not the israeli art students were spies and make up an entire wikipedia article based on one source. It seems like other users here are acting in bad faith. They either haven't bothered to go through the sources or are making deliberately misleading statements like the "students were't even israelis" and denouncing this as an urban myth like reptiles in the sewer system or describing the israeli spying using the pejorative version of the phrase "conspiracy theory" as if this was only heresay on wing-nut websites as a reason to nominate this for deletion . I have read through all of the sources mentioned here and on the articles for deletion page in depth. Other editors won't even admit that the label "urban myth" for this is at the very least controversial. They rely on the sole quotation "urban myth" in a newspaper that didn't bother to obtain the 60 pg. dea report, that didn't bother to contact any of the numerous dea agents in the dea memo that were making reports of their numerous encouters across the country with israeli "art students" in restricted areas of government buildings, around military bases, strange ecounters in which it appeared to the agents that the art students were doing "inteligence work," and numerous other encounters. Sorry getting kind of tired writing all this down. I've described this in much more detail in my other posts. To any third party objective observer this is definitely not an urban myth. Questions about urban myths aren't "fielded like hot potatoes" by colin powell and ari fleischer. an urban myth doesn't have a sixty page dea memo with hundreds of names, drivers license numbers, passport numbers and israeli ids to back it up, just spend a few minutes at least watching the first part, do they appear to think that they're discussing some outlandish theory. cameron describes later on in the special how agents say that even accusing israel of spying is considered "career suicide" davtra watch the fox special, and then read the other users comments on here and on the articlesfordeletion board. the more you read in the sources and the more you read the discussion board, the clearer it will be that some users are deliberately trying to sabotage this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 16:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually did watch the first part at your request. The 30 seconds out of 9 minutes (or something like that) brushing on it was not strong enough to warrant such a lengthy explanation. Is it mentioned in detail in the other parts and if so can you provide the approximate times for quicker viewing?Cptnono (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: I am not trying to conclusively prove the israeli spying, I do however disagree with the dismissal of the spying as an "urban myth" or some wingnut conspiracy. The fox news story clearly helps to make the point that spying was at least suspected. Other users are not even agreeing that the labeling of the spying as "urban myth" is at the very least controversial which leads me to believe that they are acting in "bad faith." Evidence is clearly presented throughout the special, it would be doing a diservice to the objectivity of this article, not watching it in its entirety.

At the very least, watch all of part 1 and part 4 from 3:00-4:34, however you will still miss out on important evidence by not watching the entire four part special.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet's version of the article

I came here from the Reliable Source Noticeboard where a question was asked about Christopher Ketcham's Salon.com piece. Ketcham is a very highly regarded freelance journalist, a veteran whose work has been carried by a number of magazines, and I judged the Salon.com piece to be extremely reliable and verifiable because of its author.

Here's the version of the article that I introduced:

The scam was operated by some Israelis in the United States and Canada beginning in summer 2000 or earlier. After it hit numerous facilities and private homes of staff members of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), a DEA officer suspected an espionage program. Both the DEA and the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive released reports about the suspicious behavior of supposed Israeli art students. The media initially reported on the military training of those involved, which is compulsory in Israel, and caused confusion. Several dozen Israelis in their 20s were deported for immigration offenses, and two of these were found to be Mossad operatives by an FBI counter-investigation. An internal DEA report, leaked in 2002 in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, shaped much of the reporting, including the idea that Israeli agents had been tracking the terrorists before the attacks. In March 2002, a Justice Department spokesperson described allegations of spying as an "urban myth", saying that they have "no information at this time to substantiate these widespread reports about Israeli art students involved in espionage." The Washington Post printed an article quoting denials from such federal officials, and described the DEA memo as the work of one disgruntled employee.
In response to criticism that the idea of an Israeli spy ring was an "urban myth", veteran journalist Christopher Ketcham wrote, "the Post's apparent debunking was far from convincing, even to the casual reader ... To someone not familiar with the 60-page DEA memo, or to reporters who didn't bother to obtain it, the fact that a disgruntled employee leaked a memo he wrote himself might seem like decisive proof that the whole "art student" tale was a canard. In reality, the nature of the memo makes its authorship irrelevant. The memo is a compilation of field reports by dozens of named agents and officials from DEA offices across America. It contains the names, passport numbers, addresses, and in some cases the military ID numbers of the Israelis who were questioned by federal authorities. Pointing a finger at the author is like blaming a bank robbery on the desk sergeant who took down the names of the robbers."

(I have removed the references for clarity.) What I did was look at the sources already in the section, to see what was being said, and I noticed that much of what appeared in those sources was not being brought to the article. Any information which made the art scam look like a spy ring was categorically not used. For instance, Seamus McGraw in Forward wrote that "a counter-intelligence investigation by the FBI concluded that at least two of them were in fact Mossad operatives." This was not being brought to the article. I retrieved some of these bits, identified which federal agency's official was saying "urban myth", and rearranged the section so that its story was clearer. What the story is, is that the art scam may have been operated as a spy ring, or it may not have. That story is what Wikipedia should tell, rather than trying to select one side. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You both need to stop edit warring. BRD does not mean post a discussion then revert. It means actually discuss with other editors. And discussion on the talk page is preferred over edit summaries while reverting.Cptnono (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I agree. To stay on topic, what is your take on my assertion that the story we should tell is that the art scam may have been operated as a spy ring by young Israelis, or it may not have. Do you think we should instead say that all the spy ring allegations are bunk? I don't see the sources supporting that version; there are opposing counterclaims and inconclusive results of investigation. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was fine as it was. Other information can be added but then you run into weight concerns so that needs to be handled differently than continuously reverting. There may be multiple problems with your text (I really don't care since I lean towards this deserving an article if it can be done right) so the other editor needs to speak up here. And I personally don't respect the Salon piece since it reads like scandal mongering craziness to me but here are a few sources that broke it down pretty well and with a decent tone (see: [9].Cptnono (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Its very odd how other users have a problem with the salon article but they don't seem to have a problem with any of the sources that were attached about chinese guys on the streets of china selling fake art that they say is real. These sources only very briefly mention chinese art students and at least two or three of the four sources about the chinese appear to be blogs. Thus, it is the chinese scam that is given undue weight. The sources attached to this wikipedia article about the chinese con appear for the most part to be near garbage. http://www.startbackpacking.com/travel/china-scam/ http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Asia/China/Beijing_Shi/Beijing-1024960/Tourist_Traps-Beijing-Art_Students-BR-1.html http://www.chinaprimer.com/china-travel-tips/china-tourism-scams.html http://books.google.com/books?id=1DqjMGlyY5QC Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If one did not assume good faith it might seem that the Chinese content was only added to water down the article for political reasons. Because tourist traps have no real connection to (allegations of) espionage operations. I agree it is the Chinese content that is taking undue weight here. RomaC ^TALK 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting Noon's reversion because he has not participated here and there is obviously no consensus on this. It appears some people don't like it but the material is sourced. RomaC ^TALK 02:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The quote really needs to be trimmed down since it recieves undue weight for this particular article now. And RomaC should have read the previous discussion and the RS noticeboard on this. Reverting does nothing but continue an edit war while discussion is taking place. Give the guy more than a couple hours to respond.Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And don't change the subject Preciseaccuracy. How about you start a separate section to discuss those sources so that this does not get bogged down?Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There are two problems with the edit. Layout and weight. Variants needs to have two subsections (Chinese and Israeli). If Cthe scope of this article needs to be changed, editors should see #Split?.

Weight wise, the Salon quote is given too much prominence. Haaretz did it right IMO.[10]. I would limit it to: "The Washington Post printed an article quoting denials from such federal officials, and described the DEA memo as the work of one disgruntled employee. In response to criticism that the idea of an Israeli spy ring was an "urban myth"(remove scare quotes), veteran journalist (OR and might even be disputed even though he has one some praise[11] "free lance writer and poet" would also work but don't think it is needed either) Christopher Ketcham wrote for Salon.com that the the nature of the memo makes its authorship irrelevant since the memo is a compilation of field reports by dozens of named agents and officials from DEA offices across America.[18] Israel's response to the piece was: "Nonsense."[12]

I think Haaretz's take on it "Anyone who believes the story says that everything is accurately documented and confirmed, and that only a conspiracy on the part of the U.S. administration - which is desperate to keep the affair quiet, partly out of shame and partly because of its warm relations with Israel - is keeping the affair out of the spotlight of public discussion. Those who repudiate the affair say it is baseless, just another unfounded urban legend that has taken on a life of its own on various marginal Internet sites." is the best but that might be too much for this article.Cptnono (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Preciseaccuracy is not helping the current discussion by changing the subject—by talking about the Chinese part of the article.

Yes, the Ketcham quote is flabby, and could use some trimming. Your version has some merit. I intend to hunt for some more pertinent bits from Ketcham to see if they are more apt, and less verbose—I would like to have a quote from him more than a paraphrase. Still, the point of the article is to say that there are two views as to whether the art scam was used as cover by an Israeli spy ring. I don't think our job is to select which version is more true.

When you wrote to RomaC to "give the guy more than a couple of hours to respond" do you mean User:Mbz1? If so, he responded immediately on his talk page, opting not to engage in discussion. An hour-and-a-half after I first changed this article, one hour and 19 minutes after this talk discussion was started, I left a message on his talk page asking about his edit summaries, about why he was citing "the consensus" when this article has established no consensus among its involved editors. Just one minute later, Mbz1 deleted my talk entry with the edit summary "not interested". I must assume that Mbz1 is "not interested" in taking part, so it does not appear as if waiting a couple of hours will help. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My version is almost a direct quote and I feared adding anymore would overwhelm the article. Realistically, one Salon piece doesn't deserve more than a line or maybe two IMO. If the article was much longer than it might be different but it isn't.

I didn't realize MBZ1 was so dismissive. He (I think She actually, apologies for not remembering) probably didn't expect RomaC to hop in and you would be bound by previous consensus. Remember that anti-vandalism tools should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used so do not use the "One-click revert of vandalism from history browser" feature. Oh well. It is fixable at least and I just have a short fuse when editors revert too fast. Mbz1 is right that you should go through the deletion discussion and this talk page if you have not already. I personally think the fix to the weight problem would be a new article (which is different form my original position since a couple of Preciseaccuracy's sources were decent) but there is very little support up above and I don't think it is that necessary.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Only one official dismissed the spying allegations as an "urban myth" Susan Dryden. Christopher Ketchum contacted at least six dea agents from across the country that confirmed the validity of their encounters described in the dea document. The post also admitted that it didn't bother to obtain the 60 pg. dea document. This article, from Creative Loafing, that I am currently having checked for reliability along with the salon.com article also questions Dryden's claim of "urban myth." http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with Binksternet's version of the article? You are only going to derail the conversation if you keep up like this. Pop that message in a new talk page section. Cptnono (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The assertions made in the salon article are correlated with some of the assertions in the creative loafing article which gives the salon assertions more weight.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You said "The Washington Post printed an article quoting denials from such federal officials." My statement corrected your statement in that only one official dismissed the spying allegations as an "urban myth" Susan Dryden.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post did print an article quoting details from such officials didn't it? Your the one who likes the Salon article so much "Reporters at the New York Times and the Washington Post hit up their go-to people inside Justice and FBI and CIA, but no one could seem to confirm the story, and indeed numerous officials laughed it off." And read the line before it in the article will ya? It isn't just DEA.

And the quote is still too long anyways even if you find a source seconding the Salon article. And other sources dispute its assertions so what about their weight? This is not going to be a mirror of the Salon article. You can write a blog or comment at Salon about it if that is all you are interested in. This article is not even soley based on the Israeli thing and even if it was the Salon piece is just one single source.

Do you have any other thoughts on my proposal? Please also keep in mind that the article no longer says it is an urban myth. Cptnono (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not one single source, are you forgetting about the four part fox news special about israel spying with brit hume and carl cameron. The other 9 or 10 sources above also treat the spying allegations in a serious manner.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And again we are back to discussing it as a whole and not this particular edit. Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cutting down the salon.com quote may end up making the analogy made by ketchum less comprehensible than in its current form.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As it should be. If you want to include the Fox news report feel free to start another talk section on it. You should be extatic that Salon is finally getting some mention at all not sidetracking it, FFS.Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Or giving it too much weight. We aren't detailing the findings by numerous other sources are we? No. This is useless. I'm working on a new draft right now since you just don't seem to get it. Still. If your favored option is to include the whole Salon quote I fear you will be out of luck because enough editors here disagreed (regardless of RomaC's revert) and the guidelines suprt the disagreement. I still think you should be happy Salon is in at all considering the rprevious reactions to it.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Washington post article = 12 sentences and didn't bother to obtain 60 pg. dea document before "debunking" spying. Salon.com article=6 pages of in depth coverage. Which article should have more coverage?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We should detail findings of the sources, another user described the "art student scam" wikipedia article as a stub. This wikipedia article is very short yet you seem determined to trim it down, even if trimming down the article makes it less comprehensible.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop repeating yourself over and over again. No, the Washington Post is more reputable and backed by other sources. Since you just keep on filibustering I have decided to create a new draft. It keeps Salon and the Forward and also introduces Fox News. Now it is all source wise and there really should be no more complaining. Did you realize that Fox never said it was the art spies that knew about 9/11? The fourth part minutes you gave weren't even accurate so go rewatch it. They were discussing the whole spy program in general. It looks like from the beginning you have really been adamant about that and the Salon report and the potential for Israel spying. How about you go work on articles related to the other three parts of the video?

"Another group of 140 Israeli individuals have been arrested and detained within this year in what government documents describe as an organized intelligence gathering operation designed to penetrate government facilities." This is referring to individuals described in the dea document and the salon article. From part 4 of the four part fox news special.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fox doesn't make that distinction but they do focus (so it means it should get some weight) on the infiltration. Another source starts talking about Ecstasy and really I just am sick of connecting dots since we are not investigative journalists or bloggers here. And what do the 60 arrested selling toys at kiosks in the mall or laborers have to do with art? They are mentioned in several reports linking the spy ring to knowing about 9/11. Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

See September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate#Foreign government foreknowledge if you think it needs more play. This article's weight needs to be sorted out so now that the peice you have been pushing is in be happy that you had partial success.Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is about israeli "art student" spying. Stop getting off topic. "140" is mentioned in both fox and salon.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

israeli "art students" are mentioned in the fox report.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I admit the salon quote might have needed some trimming, but you have done much more than that, not to mention the extra sentence from the post you didn't seem to mind adding.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL... zing. Sorry for straying off topic. Well those reports also discuss movers and people selling toys at the mall. So fine if consensus says that "There is no evidence linking these arrests to the September 11 attacks although some intelligence commentators have pointed to allegations that Israel may have been shadowing Arab militants in America without sharing its knowledge with Washington."[13] deserves mention then I could be wrong. I'm willing to go with with what other editors think on it. But really we should have had this discussion in a separate section.

And no, I added nothing from the Post. The only source added was Fox. I did some work on the Salon and Haaretz mention of the Post and NY Times.Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry, i didn't mean the post, the thing about the new york times not writing about the spying seems to be a new addition.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that the post described the new york times as not writing about spying when it was haaretz.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It was from both Salon and Haaretz which were already used. I did just add the 9/11 bit to see if it works.Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove POV, conspiracy theories, and bring the article back as it was before the first edit by Binksternet

Editors supporting the proposal

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is neither the news nor the place to spread stupid allegations, POV and conspiracy theories. Please stop beating a dead horse. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Agree with Mbz1 and made my arguments here before. --Gilisa (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Agree with Mbz1 as well. Broccoli (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Support—article went through a lot before coming to that version, which was agreed on by the widen community. The article's essential structure and content shouldn't be fundamentally changed. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
5. Support I don't think wikipedia should be repository for whacked out conspiracy theories conjured up by bloggers with wild imaginations and axes to grind.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
   • I would agree with your statement about whacked out bloggers, etc. However, the well-researched article by Christopher Ketcham remains unaddressed in your rationale. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
6. Support making this article generic. --Shuki (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
7. Support the conspiracy theory is receiving undue weight in what is meant to be an article about con artists. (Huey45 (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC))
8. Support Is there even any RS besides the single old Salon article that supports the conspiracy theory? IronDuke 00:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ironduke, there are at least ten sources that discuss the Israeli "art students" in a serious manner. Look above.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What reliable sources above agree with the Salon article? Thanks, IronDuke 02:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The only major American media was Fox and Insight on the News from the Washington Times according to Salon.Cptnono (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The salon.com article affirms along with the other articles that Israeli spying on the u.s. was at least suspected. Fox news, the Forward, Janes Intelligence Digest, Die Zeit, Le Monde, Creative Loafing, Haaretz,Insight, ect. No source other than the 12 sentence Washington post article claims that Israeli spying on the U.S. has been conclusively "debunked."

The Washington post article was even described by a "washington insider" who had been referred to the salon author by what "turned out to be a veteran D.C. correspondent who has close sources in the CIA and the FBI and who verified that Stability [the Washington insider] was a high-level intelligence agent who had been following the art student matter from the inside."

The "Washington insider" Stability said about the Washington Post article, "The Washington Post article was a plant -- that's obvious. The story was killed," "Who planted the story? Stability claimed the FBI was behind it. "Every organization is running scared," Stability added, "because they're afraid of the next shoe to drop. There are many smoking guns out there, many. So consequently every one is at a level of heightened anxiety, and when they're anxious they make mistakes." "Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support It is clear that the information from Salon will be given undue weight. If editors want to change the scope of the article (with a title change) or create a new one they need to go through whatever channels are necessary. At this point I think it might be best to remove the majority of the section and simply say "There were allegations that Israel spies using the con infiltrated US military bases, government offices, and the homes of government employees. These reports were never confirmed." I feel kind of dumb trying to work somthing out but it is clear now that the section will continue to expand to proportions that are more than is necessary for something titled "Art student scam" (if it hasn't already). If a new article or complete change of scope is going to happen, editors need to pursue that through the appropriate channels. This over expansion (which I am partly to blame for) just needs to stop. My bad.Cptnono (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The original topic of this wikipedia article was suspected israeli spying on the U.S. References to the unrelated chinese tourist trap seem to have been added purposefully to distract from the spying and to whitewash references to Israel.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And the original purpose drug it to a deletion discussion. If you want an article here to discuss espionage you need to get consensus for a title change or new article. Until then I again request that the espionage bits are trimmed to a bare minimum (a line or two) since they are not within the scope of this article. We tried something out and it didn't work. And the repeating of the same arguments and heated conversation isn't helping anyting.Cptnono (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree we stop repeating the same arguments because it's just a bit ridiculous to hear it suggested that the scope of an article about an alleged Israeli spy ring in the US, something well-supported by reliable sources eg. Haraatz, Salon, Zeit, etc., must include, nay focus on, tourist traps in China. I know there have been problems with the article, eg. this version this version which preceded the deletion discussion, had original research up the ass. But surely the way to fix that is to remove problems, not add China? RomaC ^TALK 10:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of repeating, I love that Haaretz piece.

The scope of the article was originally the espionage thing. That was subject to a deletion discussion and the article did not really take off until the rewrite that received wide endorsement there. It was also the primary reason for the closing admin to close it as no consensus while delete had looked like a real possibility up until then. This article is not about espionage. It is about a con. That is why I favored a split up above. But since it is not split, the scope of the article needs to be changed through whatever procedures are available (a few were mentioned by another editor) and there is currently no consensus to expand the spy part. I would go as far as saying that consensus appears to be against it (not by a wide margin). And after reflection, I still think most of the spy part needs the axe from this article.Cptnono (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:GregorB said his impression of the articlesfordeletion page was that

• Strong political bias was definitely present in the discussion
• Distortion took place mostly in the form of whitewashing, i.e. by attempting to remove all references to Israel, contrary to what sources said. A nice example: a six-page Salon article does not count and cannot be used as a source because it received a perfunctory, three-sentence "debunking" by the Washington Post.

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless he was the closing admin commenting on the revesided version of the article: I don't care what he said.Cptnono (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors opposing the proposal

• Oppose, of course. The current proposal is one that intends to establish the Wikipedia story as this: the art scam has been seen in the U.S. performed by Israelis, some DEA agents thought they were spies, but it was a mistake. That version cannot be supported by the references. The story we must tell is this: the art scam may have been used as a cover by Israeli agents, and it may not have. That is what the sources add up to. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, Now, even after the salon.com source has been determined to be reliable, the other editors still dismiss suspected spying as a crazy "conpiracy theory" that shouldn't be included in this article when it was at the very least "suspected." Once again, the users try to delete anything that even mildly suggests the possibility of Israel spying. They don't even bother to reason out in detail why they want it reverted because they have larger numbers. Once Binksternet leaves, they'll likely revert everything and continue to whitewash references to Israel out of the article along with diluting the article with more unrelated Chinese stuff from blogs. User:Gilisa claims to have made her arguments here before. The two other sentences she wrote on this page along with the two or three sentences she wrote on the articlesfordeletion page basically sum up to wp:idontlikeit. Her arguments made elsewhere were that salon and the other sources aren't reliable which clearly falls apart now that the salon.com article has been demonstrated to be reliable.Preciseaccuracy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC).
• Oppose I might have supported but don't think bringing the article to "as it was before the first edit by Binksternet" is a good solution. My propsal is at: #All changes to the article should wait until the consensus is reached.Cptnono (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Thinking about things further, an indiscriminate rollback that ignores the merits of individual editors made by assorted editors in the mean time is always a disruptive way to deal with things. As is acting on a vote just a few hours after you open it when several contributors may not have been able to participate yet.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not seeing this version as particularly problematic. The article could need beefing up of the other sections not relating to the allegations of espionage, but that is part and parcel of WP:NOTFINISHED. Unomi (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Daniel Pipes may have called the spy ring an urban myth; Justin Raimondo disagreed: [14][15].     ←   ZScarpia   00:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose (qualified below because "should we remove POV?" is a trick question). There are two takes on the event: 1) The deported kids were spying, 2) They were not spying. Support reflecting both in the article with appropriate weight. And for the umpteenth time allegations of spying is what made the event notable, not the hawking of paintings, so Chinese painting sales are irrelevant, at most these could take a "See also" link to a generic article on such cons/scams. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 20:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I'm wanting a bitmore time to see hwo things go. I noticed that the ONCIX warnign was being used to support a position quite different from what it said. If distortions like this are maintained, then I would be for chopping it. If my clarification and similar content are kept, then I may be able to live with the section.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by RomaC This is an unreasonably loaded "proposal" by a since-blocked editor: "Proposal to remove POV and conspiracy theories..." indeed. The entire orientation/scope of the article need to be reassessed -- was there an event involving a team of Israelis in the US hawking paintings, maybe spying, getting deported? Yes. If it was reported enough to pass Wiki's threshold for inclusion, then we make an article about this event. Pairing it with a Chinese tourist scam is a ridiculous red herring. For example, if the Israelis' cover were falafel cooks, would this espionage event be sandwiched into an article about middle eastern fast food? RomaC ^TALK 00:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

All changes to the article should wait until the consensus is reached

Because as for right now more than 50% of the editors supporting the old, stable version, I am going to restore it until the vote is finished or until the consensus will be turning other way around. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is funny, because your section heading says "all changes". You yourself have just changed the article. I find that your changes violate the ArbCom decision found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive, in which it was determined that "It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand." Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you really believe that the section name "Alleged Israeli espionage" could be considered neutral? And what about this statement: "The scam was operated by some Israelis in the United States and Canada beginning in summer 2000 or earlier." There's no even word "alleged"--Mbz1 (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

One more example: You wrote: "One group has an apparently legitimate money-making goal while the second, perhaps a non-Israeli group, may have ties to a Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalist group", then why not to name the section "Alleged Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalist group espionage"? --Mbz1 (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And where the link to Fox broadcast. The reference included by you now only links to the show itself, but not to specificprogram--Mbz1 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Booooo! :) I thought the version I worked out to meet some of the needs of Preciseaccuacy were pretty decent for the most part. But I do agree that massive changes need some consensus. I just wanted to find a solution without straight reverting. So in an attempt to reach consensus:

Attempt to address the issues of those looking at this like a conspiracy theory

Does this version work? If not, are there any changes that would make it work?Cptnono (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is better without the section names. The part about the scam in China doesn't need the "China" header, since it's more about providing a more detailed description of the general characteristics of the scam than about China-specific regional variation. The "alleged Israeli espionage" header seems problematic to me, because "alleged" is a legal term and raises the question of who made an allegation. It doesn't look to me that anyone reliable actually did go as far as "alleging" that there was Israeli espionage, it's more like a speculation that was given relatively more or less weight by various sources of varying reliability. IMO, the best way to deal with the ambiguity is to get rid of the header entirely, both because it seems to place undue weight on the section and because it seems hard to summarize "no one really figured out what was going on, but conspiracy enthusiasts and creative journalists came up with lots of possible explanations..." in a way that sounds encyclopedic at all. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I still view that my change immediately after yours is needed to remove the implication that NCIX issued a warning about Israeli spies. Their warning was about Israeli bogus art dealers and non-Israeli spies/infiltrators.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the title of this section. Neither I nor Blinksternet are pushing crazy conspiracy theories. Both reliable and verifiable sources point to the Israeli "art students" spying as being at least "suspected."Preciseaccuracy (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Although your version is at least an improvement in some ways over pre-blinksternet edits, in no way do I think that this should be a final version. The chinese tourist trap is unrelated to suspected israeli spying on the United States and should be split off into a separate article.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the link the fox news link you posted needs improvement as it just links to an article about the fox news show and not the specific four part special.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This phrase in the wikipedia article is not accurate: "a DEA officer suspected an espionage program." It is clear that more than one person suspected an espionage program. Take these quotes from the salon article for example.

"the security branch of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency began to receive a number of peculiar reports from DEA field offices across the country"

"Agents of the DEA, ATF, Air Force, Secret Service, FBI, and U.S. Marshals Service documented some 130 separate incidents of "art student" encounters"

The dea report was a compilation of the encounters of numerous agents with Israeli "art students" and was clearly not the work of a "lone desk bound nutjob in the dea." Preciseaccuracy (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@PRSee WP:Offline sources and WP:VIDEOLINK (last one is my own). The Fox News report mentions it just fine and I don;t see why anymore is needed at all since "military bases and government facilities" along with the previous line mentioning private homes says it all. And since this article is not about the espionage scandal, Chinese scam should be mentioned. If you don't like it you need to push for creating a new article.

And Peter's addition doesn't hurt my feelings at all.

I think sectio headers are good layout wise but don't care what they say.Cptnono (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I no longer support my proposal. Recommend reducing the section to a line or two. Reasoning is provided up above.Cptnono (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Urban Myth" quote by justice department official should be balanced by this quote from this other Justice department official

"In a March 11 article, Insight quoted a senior Justice Department official as saying, "We think there is something quite sinister here but are unable at this time to put our finger on it" -- essentially echoing what the DEA report concluded."Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Source please. And next time you don;t need a whole new subsection. Editors will often skip the one above which limits the ability to come to a consensus either ay on the overall edit.Cptnono (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The source is the salon.com article quoting an Insight article.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a multi page article can you at least provide the page number to make ctrl+fing faster.Cptnono (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Go to the printable page of the article which views all pages at once.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL "The only major American media outlet aside from Fox to seriously present the "art student" allegations was Insight on the News, the investigative magazine published weekly by the conservative Washington Times. In a March 11 article, Insight quoted a senior Justice Department official as saying, "We think there is something quite sinister here but are unable at this time to put our finger on it" -- essentially echoing what the DEA report concluded." I see no reason not to expand the line with the quote, maybe some more from the Washington Post, and the highlighted line above. I didn't realize they were so "cutting edge" and scandalous.Insight on the News Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop twisting facts, you know the Forward is an American newspaper that covered spying in a serious manner along with other media outlets across the world. If you want to make statements like the one above how about this : The only major media outlet in the world to outright claim to have debunked spying on the united states was the twelve sentence Washington Post article. Meanwhile, every other source was inconclusive about spying. Interesting Cptnono, how you have finally quit your poor attempt at faking neutrality.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the matter with you? I go out of my way to add information you want in and you treat me like a dick? The fuck?Cptnono (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) (I could have worded that better.)Cptnono (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You claim you want "to add information". You literally just said about the suspected alleged Israeli espionage section that you "Recommend reducing the section to a line or two." From this, it appears you want to whitewash the article of references to Israel for political purposes.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No. I want this article to be about the con as discussed in the deletion discussion and you or someone else to do whatever is needed to start the new article. That is why I started the "Split" discussion. Cptnono (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus that the Salon.com article should be linked to this wikipedia article

Support The Salon article has been determined to be both reliable and verifiable on the reliable sources page. It also contains very relevant and in depth coverage of this topic. Further, the article addresses relevant points in more detail and seems to contain more substance than other articles currently linked to this wikipedia article.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose A free lance writer created a muckraking piece. have even found possible factual accuracies (apparently NY Times did not write about it as alluded to in the text) and so far most attempts at using it have mirrored its scandal mongering tone and been given undue weight. It might be possible to use but I so far have little trust that it will be done correctly. It should be noted that my draft did include it so my oppose is for other than reasons pertaining to verifiability.Cptnono (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The factual innacuracy I see is in your above comment Cptnono. The salon article did say that the New York Times didn't write about the art students. "Despite such obvious holes in the official story, neither the Post nor any other mainstream media organization ran follow-up articles. The New York Times has not yet deemed it worth covering -- in fact, the paper of record has not written about the art student mystery even once, not even to pooh-pooh it."Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I missread it then. However, my objection to its use stands until editors can prove that they are not seeking to mirror its tone.Cptnono (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal objections don't matter, policy matters. No policy-based reason disqualifying Salon, a high-quality source. And I don't know if editors are bandying the word "muckraking" hoping to cast aspersions, but it's not a negative word -- Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were muckraking when they got their Watergate scoop. The "resist the content, question the source, attack the writer" tact has been used plenty on Wikipedia, it's easy enough to dismiss that with Salon.Com: "Outstanding Digital Journalism - General" | GLAAD; "Feature Journalism -- Independent" | Online Journalism Awards; "Best Print and Zine" | Webby Awards; "Best 50 Web Sites" | Time Magazine; "Best of the Web | Book Clubs" Forbes; "Best Online Magazine" | Yahoo Internet Life; "Top 100 Websites" | PC Magazine; "Cool Site of the Year" | U.S. News & World Report; "Best of the Web" | Business Week. et cetera. Let's move on. RomaC ^TALK 02:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I should have been more clear "If it is included in the manner that is UNDUE WEIGHT and POV than I object". Of course the source is fine when it comes to the base requirements for verifiability but there is little doubt it will stay included if editors refuse to follow guidelines and policies.Cptnono (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Salon is an RS I believe (though I haven't double-checked). Not the highest-level, but still an RS. If it is included in accordance w/the above-indicated hueing to wp policy, it should be fine. I expect that we all agree on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Not only is Salon.com reliable, the investigative journalist author of that article, Christopher Ketcham, is notable himself—a writer with a very broad span of work in mainstream publications. He is a muckraker in the best sense of the word. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• opposeThere's no such thing as RS on this subject. No matter what ant RS is claiming it is a pure speculation, and we are writing encyclopedia, and not yesterday's gossips.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No. Reliable sources are allowed to speculate; we are not. Fences&Windows 21:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

neutrality disputed

As you probably have seen I added a new section "Israel warned CIA about possible al-Qaeda attack a month before September 11" The biggest interest is the Fox News piece. Why? Well... In 2001 Fox News broadcast allegedly claimed that allegedly Israelis allegedly knew about the attack, but allegedly did not warn USA. Few months later in 2002, Fox News with the same Carl Cameron claims just the opposite: "Based on its own intelligence, the Israeli government provided "general" information to the United States in the second week of August that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent." Another quote might be even more interesting: "German intelligence alerted the Central Intelligence Agency, Britain's MI-6 intelligence service, Israel's Mossad in June 2001 that Middle Eastern terrorists were training for hijackings and targeting American and Israeli interests." So maybe Israelis knew nothing before Germans warned them. IMO there's why too many "maybe" and too many "alleged" in that article. IMO, the info from 2001 should be removed, because the later one from 2002 tells a completely different story. That's why before that section is hopefully removed I tagged it with "neutrality disputed".--Mbz1 (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In general what has been going on here for quite some time now it was loosing the time only because a single article account Preciseaccuracy (why in the world that user name sounds so familiar ? ) , who cannot assume a good faith, who is canvasing in any place she could,running from one board to another, and so on, and so on suddenly decided to start flogging a dead horse (the horse that should have never been born BTW), and few "always ready to say something bad about Israel" users helped her in her agenda.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Who spends time creating an entirely new section with new sources and only a few minutes later says that they hope that the entire new section they created is removed? Mbz1's behavior is indeed very odd.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid you have difficulties in understanding my English. I said: IMO, the info from 2001 should be removed, because the later one from 2002 tells a completely different story". I was talking about an old section, the one you wrote, which refers to Fox News broadcast from December 11, 2001, and that btw was removed few days later, and is not available even in the paid archive.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Both the Fox news special and the piece above refer to the warning as "general." These two sources clearly do not contradict each other. Below is an excerpt from the Fox news special.

"Carl Cameron: I remember the report, Brit. We did it first internationally right here on your show on the 14th. What investigators are saying is that that warning from the Mossad was nonspecific and general, and they believe that it may have had something to do with the desire to protect what are called sources and methods in the intelligence community. The suspicion being, perhaps those sources and methods were taking place right here in the United States.

The question came up in select intelligence committee on Capitol Hill today. They intend to look into what we reported last night, and specifically that possibility – Brit.

Brit Hume: So in other words, the problem wasn't lack of a warning, the problem was lack of useful details?

Carl Cameron: Quantity of information.

Brit Hume: All right, Carl, thank you very much."

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh really, they do not contradict each other? There was a warning from Mossad? Then why it is nothing about that warming in the section you wrote? It is what I am saying all along you are POV pusher.

BTW, Preciseaccuracy, do you remember where you were, and what you did, when the attack of September 11 happen?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel warned CIA about possible al-Qaeda attack a month before September 11

Can someone explain to me the relevance of this section to this article? This would seem to be able to find a better home elsewhere. Unomi (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Unomi.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What a strange question of a user, who claims to be neutral. Preciseaccuracy you wrote a strong POV claiming that Israel knew about the attack , but did not share the info with US.You wanted to write about students spies. I wrote about student spies, about the very same students, who were deported from US before they were able to finish their investigation, and who did warn US about the attack. Here's one of the quotes: "According to research by ZEIT, between December 2000 and April 2001 a whole horde of Israeli counter-terror investigators, posing as students, followed the trails of Arab terrorists and their cells in the United States. In their secret investigations, the Israelis came very close to the later perpetrators of Sept. 11. In the town of Hollywood, Florida, they identified the two former Hamburg students and later terror pilots Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi as possible terrorists. Agents lived in the vicinity of the apartment of the two seemingly normal flight school students, observing them around the clock. " Here's another quote: "The Israelis provided a list including the names of at least four out of the 19 hijackers of Sept. 11, but this was apparently not treated as sufficiently urgent by the CIA and also not passed on to the FBI. What is clear is that the U.S. agencies did not react quickly in following up on the tips from the Israeli agents. The ongoing congressional joint investigation has also found out about the Israeli angle.", and is not from tabloid, it is from Der Spiegel. The piece I wrote has the direct connection to the article. Please let's do something else, and stop loosing time here.@Preciseaccuracy, it will be time spent better, if you are to file few more reports about me and others on different boards, than asking silly questions here. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem was that your edit did not establish any connection between the 'art student spies' which you mention just above and the information passed. I wrote about student spies, about the very same students, who were deported from US before they were able to finish their investigation, and who did warn US about the attack. this was not established in the text you added. It read like a disconnected account of mossad passing on information. If you can establish that the art students from the other sources were Israeli agents then I would definitely support your edit. Unomi (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a big axe to this section and have removed mention of 911 from the previous section. This article is not about the antics of Israelis, who may or may not have been spies, in the US as a whole; rather it concerns dodgy behaviour by people posing as art students. Anything that is more than one step removed does not belong in this article and will get chopped per WP:COATRACK.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not good enough, what you did. You took mention of 9/11 out of the article, but the sources used in the article are talking about Israel failing to warn US about 9/11. That's why a few of the sources I have added yesterday should be included in the article. After all they are also about the alleged student spies. Also now the article sounds as Israelis were spying against US, and this is not the case.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had another little copy edit, adding mention of the Canadian allegations. I don't see any Wikipedia policy that makes it appropriate to add any of the other stuff just because some of the sources mention the 911 conspiracy theory.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any Wikipedia policy why not either. If more neutrality could be achieved even indirectly, it is always a good thing to do.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding stuff about what jolly good people Israelis are is just as much coatracking as adding stuff about how terrible they are. BTW the mention of 911 in the original article is what got me to raise the original afd. I'm still going to do all I can to keep it out of the current article.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not say mention of 9/11 should be added to the article. I only saying that few of the sources that are positive to Israel should be used. But now our "accuracy" added few more "references" to discredit Washington Post article. I guess I've got enough of this article and of single article account "accuracy". I should have known that the more one touches the [....] the more it stinks. My bad I got myself to be involved here. Just one more thing that bothers me, Peter cohen. You were the one, who reverted me, and put back 9/11 connection, and you took it off only after I added a new section. I am taking it off my watch list, and it is all yours.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to create an SPI if that's what you think is going on. You've had rather more success in your recent one than I normally do. I'm here to try to ensure that things remain balanced, on subject, represent soruces accurately and keep to NPOV. As for why I reverted you, I dislike rollbacks of good faith contributions by several authors in one go as they smack of WP:OWNership and disregard of the efforts of others. And if you start a !vote, you've got to give it time to run its course rather than act on it prematurely when the odds happen to be in your favour.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Organisation of material

I've been tryign to organise the "spying" material more logically. Rather than arranging things chronologically, I am arranging things thematically. This is more encyclopedic than a sequential account.

I have made a first paragraph with the facts of various Israelis being deported, some official reports being produced and official statements being issued by US and Israeli officials.

The second paragraph is about different conclusions beign reached by various publications and what they say their anonymous sources told them. The NYT and WP dismissing it, Fox and Salon favouring the spy story and also the theory of the crime syndicate. All of these are opinions expressed by secondary sources and do not have the same status as the first paragraph material

I've then got a short mention of the Canadian story as that is a separate incident altogether.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The direct quote from a senior level justice department official from insight was not a secondary source and yet you had no trouble moving that to the second paragraph while leaving the urban myth quote in the first paragraph

You also rearranged the chronology of events to make it appear that the senior level justice department official was questioning Stability's statement which came afterward.

Notice how the first paragraph without the addition of the creative loafing comment that I just added strongly pushes the pov that the spying was an urban myth without adding the qualifications made by other sources which peter has pushed to the end of the article.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous individual still isn't the same type of source as an official statement. Sometimes anonymous officials are more truthful than the official statements - in the UK recently senior Labour officials are now speakign openly about what Tony Blair and Gordon Brown really thought about each other, until recently such things couldn't really have been covered in Wikipedia because it was all unofficial rumour - sometimes it just means that there is an internal power struggle and some people are just out to make other people look bad or to get more money for their internal departments by bigging certain issues.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done some more reorganisation and expansion of the NZ/Australia side of things. Fences&Windows 21:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter, You also rearranged the chronology of events in the second paragraph to make it appear that the second justice department official from Insight was questioning Stability's statement which came afterward.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to Reason

Here's what I wrote yesterday to a concerned editor, a bit long please bear with me:

The article is now about 1) a thing (art student scam) and 2) an event (alleged spying with art sales as a cover). Because some editors want to swing focus one way and some want to swing focus the other way, we end up dealing with questions of both scope and content at the same time, which is not only difficult, but anti-Wikipedia. To resolve this I think we should not keep trying to conflate the thing and the event into one article, instead we should use Wikilinks to connect the relevant parts of two different articles. Both thing and event seem notable enough to pass the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, and both are verifiable through reliable sources etc., so I suggest having two articles.

The first, a reworking of the present article, should be on the thing, i.e. the art sales scam, which a quick search shows has been reported in at least the US, Canada, Oceania and China, and involves not only "perps" claiming/claimed to be Israeli. Here the content should deal with the mechanics of the "scam" including types of paintings and prices, also usual prices of oil paintings versus prices of those mass-produced in Thailand, China etc. (As an aside, I wonder if any non-OR sources question whether claiming art as one's own even though it was executed by another is really a "scam" -- see appropriation art.)

Then, a second article on the event, i.e. allegations of an espionage operation by young Israelis using the art sales scam as a cover. This I think should be a compact article that dispassionately looks at the dates and places, the numbers allegedly involved and the deportations, and the investigative reports alleging an espionage operation along with those describing such allegations as urban myths or whatever. A large amount of skepticism would be in order here because nothing has been proven.

Given that the article is now a mess regarding both scope and content, I think the way forward is with a split something like this. I'd help any interested editors work on this, or maybe an uninvolved editor takes it. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 16:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RomaC that allegations of Israelis spying on the United States under the cover of art students are in no way reasonably connected to a Chinese tourist trap.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What would be the titles of the two articles? Art student scam fits the confidence trick idea nicely, but what will be the name of the alleged espionage article? Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Alleged Israeli "art student" spy ring in the United States" or "Suspected Israeli "art student" spying in the United States" for the article about the suspected Israeli "art student" spying.

For the article about the art scam. Title it "Counterfeit Art Scam" Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The titles could also include the range of years the alleged "art student" spying is said to have occurred.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

or "Art Student Con" for the tourist trap.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Art student con/scam" for the thing; "Alleged Israeli art student espionage operation 2000" or somesuch for the event. But this could be worked out later. RomaC ^TALK 23:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it can be expected that a new afd would follow any attempt to create a second article. Perhaps an rfc would be appropriate first.

I'd like to point out that whether there are two articles or not, there is still no room for mention of 911 conspiracy theories in material on the art spying allegations. The connections are all speculative and not suitable for an encyclopedia.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed there would likely be a AfD request but the event seems notable and verifiable so it should be fine if neutral eyes get a look, the last AfD was what resulted in the current scope/content mess IMO because the specific event and the generic thing got Frankensteined together. RomaC ^TALK 23:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think we should split it. The "Israeli art scam" seems to be a common thread running through stories in the US, Canada, NZ and Australia since the early 2000s, only in the US it sparked an espionage investigation. Some sources suggest the possibility that a genuine spy ring could have used the scam as cover. The Chinese scam seems more loosely connected. Fences&Windows 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fences, a hypothetical: Allegations of a spy ring using "falafel chef" as their cover. Wouldn't the "spy ring" angle be more notable than the "falafel chef" cover? What I mean is wouldn't such an (alleged) espionage operation (if notable enough) get its own Wiki article apart from the "falafel" article? Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 23:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there some sort of board we can go to that an objective third party will judge the split at?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)